Thursday, May 31, 2007

The point about academic gibberish is particularly well-taken. It is reminiscent of an anecdote from Richard Feynman. Feynman attended an event at which many intellectuals from different fields discussed various issues. His group passionately debated an issue for a while, and rebuffed his effort to define the terms being discussed. Eventually, it became clear that nobody knew what they were talking about!

Anyone who doubts the existence of cultural Marxism should pay attention to this passage.

Grammar and clear expression are under another kind of attack as well. Rules, good writing, and simple coherence are sometimes depicted as habits of the powerful and privileged. James Sledd, professor emeritus of English at the University of Texas, writes in the textbook College English that standard English is “essentially an instrument of domination.” If proper English is oppressive, what could be more logical than setting out to undermine it? English Leadership Quarterly ran an article urging teachers to encourage intentional writing errors as “the only way to end its oppression of linguistic minorities and learning writers.” The pro-error article, written by two professors at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, actually won an award from the quarterly, a publication of the National Council of Teachers of English. So you can now win awards for telling the young to write badly.

On April 29, the Kalamazoo Gazette made an analogy comparing the state of Michigan to a business owner who has seen revenues slip but who hasn't trimmed expenses to keep up. ``His savings are gone. His credit is tapped out. The bills are piling up.'' This is an accurate analogy.

In the discussions, I had with the reporter leading up to this article, I pointed out another key concern which the story failed to mention. To take the analogy a little further, if that business owner saw a department head mismanaging valuable company funds, if not stealing them, he would undoubtedly act immediately to dismiss, if not prosecute that department head.

This apparently does not happen in state government. The ``CEO'' has known for years about gross mismanagement of funds and has failed to act. I cite a few examples:A 10-year contract with the Department of Information and Technology for voice and data communications starts at $17 million, but after several ``contract change orders,'' grows to $129 million.

A nine-year contract with the Department of Management and Budget for computing hardware, software and services starts at $58 million and balloons to $555 million after ``changes.''

A 13-year contract for ``all state agencies'' was signed for $2 million. Somehow, additions are approved to increase the contract to $144 million.

A four-year contract with the Michigan child-support enforcement system to provide project management services worth $5.6 million is increased to $200 million.

The Department of Community Health makes more than $55 million in questionable or over-payments to its pharmacy benefits manager.

Meanwhile, in 2006, the Department of Human Services overspends its budget by $30 million, doesn't report it as required by law and goes on spending, even though they know two months before the end of the budget year that they are over-budget and in violation of the Constitution.

All of these overpayments and many more like them were reported in recent audits performed by the auditor general of the state. The Legislature responded when appropriate with new legislation to tighten controls. But the only way to truly address these serious issues is for the department heads to be held responsible by the ``CEO'' -- the governor -- for their incompetence. This has not happened.

The governor continues to ask for tax increases. She has recommended an additional $1 billion in spending for next year. She has recommended an additional 700 civil-service positions, while threatening to lay off 29 state troopers.

As a state representative responsible for sound fiscal policy, I cannot, in good conscience, even consider tax increases when spending continues to spiral upward and hundreds of millions of dollars are mismanaged and misspent by government. I am hopeful that the executive branch of government will get its house in order.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

(AP) Sen. Hillary Clinton outlined a broad economic vision on Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic presidential hopeful said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none." That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Clinton, D-N.Y., spoke at the Manchester School of Technology, which trains high school students for careers in the construction, automotive, graphic arts and other industries. The school highlighted one of the nine goals she outlined: increasing support for alternative schools and community colleges.

"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said. "Our country cannot run without the people who have the skills that are taught in this school."

Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.

Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance."

I think Clinton owes a royalty check to Marx for this plagiarism of his Manifesto. Hillary is a communist through-and-through. She isn't even trying to hide it! How many times must the failed, flawed, and bankrupt system of socialism leave its people dramatically worse off before people finally figure out that capitalism is the surest and quickest path to prosperity for all members of a society?

In other news, like a broken record, the socialist leader Hugo Chavez is already starting the textbook government brainwashing and speech-denial that is representative of all socialist governments.

This time he's dismantled a television station critical of his policies.

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez defended his decision not to renew the license of a popular opposition-aligned television network on Tuesday and warned he might crack down on another critical TV station, accusing it of trying to incite attempts on his life.

Chavez said his refusal to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television, which went off the air at midnight Sunday, is "a sovereign, legitimate decision in which there is no argument."

He said the remaining opposition-sided channel Globovision had encouraged attempts on his life and warned that if it wants "to continue calling for disobedience, inciting assassination ... I'm going to warn them before the nation... I recommend they take a tranquilizer, that they slow down, because if not, I'm going to slow them down."

Chavez did not elaborate, but also warned that radio stations should not be inciting violence by "manipulating feelings" among the populace.

Thousands of Venezuelans — both Chavez supporters and opponents — staged separate marches in Caracas on Tuesday. The Chavez opponents chanted "freedom!" while government supporters said they were in the streets to reject an opposition attempt to stir up violence.

Information Minister Willian Lara on Monday accused Globovision of encouraging an attempt on Chavez's life by broadcasting the chorus of a salsa tune — "Have faith, this doesn't end here" — along with footage of the 1981 assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II in St. Peter's Square.

The government turned over RCTV's license to a new state-funded public channel, which showed a documentary on explorers in Antarctica, a children's program and exercise programs, interspersed with government ads repeating the slogan "Venezuela now belongs to everyone."

On Monday in Caracas, Venezuelan police fired tear gas and plastic bullets into a crowd of up to 5,000 protesters. The protesters later regrouped in the Plaza Brion chanting "freedom!" Some tossed rocks and bottles at police, prompting authorities to scatter demonstrators by firing more gas.

It was the largest of several protests that broke out across Caracas. At least three people and one policemen were reported injured in the skirmishes.

Interior Minister Pedro Carreno told state-run television that four students were wounded by gunfire during a pro-RCTV protest staged near a university in the city of Valencia, located 93 miles west of Caracas. It was not immediately clear who the assailants were or if they were arrested.

Government supporters reveled in the streets as they watched the midnight changeover on large TV screens, seeing RCTV's signal go black and then be replaced by a TVES logo. Others launched fireworks and danced in the streets.

Chavez says he is democratizing the airwaves by turning the network's signal over to public use.

The president accused the network of helping to incite a failed coup in 2002, violating broadcast laws and "poisoning" Venezuelans with programming that promoted capitalism. RCTV's managers deny wrongdoing.

Founded in 1953, RCTV was the nation's oldest private channel and regularly topped viewer ratings with its talk shows, sports, soap operas and comedy programs.

Saturday, May 26, 2007

The Bush-Kennedy amnesty is a threat to America. The bill would provide amnesty and the possibility of citizenship to 12-20 million illegal aliens. It would cost American jobs. It would cost taxpayers $2.5 trillion dollars. It would promote gun control and threaten American sovereignty. Most conservatives and Republican presidential candidates oppose the bill.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Derek Getman, CO-President of A.I.M. at WMU (a pro second amendment group on campus) recently submitted this letter to the editor to the Western Herald and also the Kalamazoo Gazette. It is a well written piece that lays out the simple case for why guns should be allowed on campus. WMU Professor Paul Panchella proves once again how much free time he has by penning this response to Derek. With all of the time I assume he spends brooding against any displays of conservatism on campus I would have expected a letter of higher quality. It seems what the professor fails to realize is that the campus ban on guns only stops the law abiding people from bringing guns onto campus. People who would misuse guns I highly doubt would be deterred by the blink-and-miss signs that say "gun free campus."

On an unrelated note: I strongly encourage all of you to take the quiz at http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html to see which 2008 Presidential candidate they feel is most aligned with your views (and sometitmes equally interesting: which candidates are the furthest away from your views). Republican and Democratic candidates are included. I have taken the quiz a few times, usually getting similar results. It doesn't include every issue under the sun, but it seems to give very fair results for an under 5 minute quiz.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

One good thing about Michigan's budget crisis is that it has encouraged people to take a hard look at how Michigan is spending taxpayers' money.

At this point, it seems appropriate to repeat the old joke that Congress spends money like drunken sailors...except that drunken sailors spend their own money.

The same applies to the state of Michigan, particularly to bureaucracy. Far from the myth that government has been "cut to the bone", more and more evidence is emerging about how government continues to waste our money.

The Detroit News has reported that employees who work in the public schools for 13 days can earn lifetime health care.

Eighty government employees across Michigan planned to attend a conference on pensions in Hawaii.

Granholm is pursuing a "Washington Monument strategy", threatening to cut the most popular programs, rather than what needs to be cut.

It's worth remembering that all of this wasteful spending falls into general categories like public schools, universities, corrections, health care, and roads that few people disagree with. Just because government promises to spend money toward a certain goal doesn't mean that it will be spent wisely.

When will people ever learn that government is never more efficient than the private sector?

House Bill 4597, sponsored by State Representative Matthew Gillard (D-106), unanimously passed the Michigan House of Representatives (109-0) on Thursday, May 3. HB4597 is scheduled to be heard in the State Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs on Wednesday, May 23. This “No-Net Loss” legislation would ensure that today's total acreage of public lands open to public hunting will not be reduced.

The United States Senate is currently considering a massive amnesty for illegal aliens.

This would be a disaster for America.

The bill was negotiated in secret. It is hundreds of pages long. It will not be subjected to the usual committee hearings, where supporters and opponents have a chance to state their cases and bills can be subjected to analysis and criticism. It will not even be debated for any significant length of time. Instead, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to invoke cloture to end debate on Monday.

Why the rush? Because Americans will not support this bill when they find out what's in it.

Make no mistake. This is amnesty. Supporters use language like a "path to citizenship" or "earned legalization" to hide this fact. But any plan that fails to undo illegal entry is just that. It allows people to stay after violating our laws. But actually, this is even worse than amnesty. It not only forgives the crime, it rewards the lawbreaker with citizenship, and the many benefits that come with it.

This amnesty applies to almost all 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country. The bill also includes a massive increase in legal immigration. It also creates a "guest-worker" program that will allow millions more into the country. Thanks to birthright citizenship, the children of guest workers will become instant citizens.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates the cost of this amnesty as and incredible 2.5 trillion dollars. Formerly illegal immigrants would become eligible for government payments from Social Security, Medicare, welfare, public schools, food stamps, and more. The requirement of a $5000 fine for citizenship is a joke given all the government benefits illegals will become eligible for. It also forgives illegals for not paying taxes while they were here illegally.

Millions of poor and middle-class Americans will be displaced from their jobs by immigrants willing to work for less. Democrats who advocate a minimum wage for the supposed benefit of the poor seem all too willing to import immigrants to undersell their labor. Democrats who complain about outsourcing of jobs seem all too willing to insource immigrant workers to take those same jobs. How could any Democrat who genuinely cares about American workers support this bill?

The disuniting of America will accelerate. It is all too clear from watching the illegal alien rallies that many of the millions of illegals remain loyal to their home countries and have no loyalty to America. Some come with hatred of America. Many wave the flags of their home countries and some even celebrate communist mass-murderer Che Guevara. They will not assimilate, as past immigrants have done. Why would they, if we do not demand it? How can we consider giving American citizenship to people who have no loyalty to America?

Since most of the illegals are "minorities", amnesty will result in a huge de facto increase in the use of racial preferences. This will lead to increased polarization and racial strife. America will Balkanize along racial and ethnic lines and the dream of a colorblind society will be ever more remote.

Since there are higher crime rates among many immigrant groups, more Americans will be robbed, raped, and murdered. Since the same is true of drunk driving rates, more Americans will be injured or killed that way. A handful of those alienated from society will commit dramatic crimes.

More American hospitals will be bankrupted and shut down by the increasing demand for free emergency health care. More diseases will be inadvertently spread by new immigrants.

Amnesty would massively undermine respect for the rule of law.

Since rewarding a behavior leads more of it, amnesty will create an even greater incentive for foreigners to enter America illegally. The millions who are legalized would be replaced by ten of millions more illegals. This is exactly what happened after the last "comprehensive" amnesty in 1986. If we pass amnesty now, why wouldn't we do so again in the future?

Supporters of this measure will point to provisions that supposedly secure the border and increase penalties for employers who hire illegals. Don't be fooled. This won't happen. The problem that we have now is not so much with the laws on the books as the government's failure to enforce them. This is no accident; the government refuses to enforce the law. This is because many politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen, open-borders ideologues, and ethnic lobbies want it that way. The 1986 amnesty promised stepped-up enforcement; it didn't happen. In 2006, Congress passed a bill to build a fence along the Mexican border; it hasn't happened. What reason do we have to think that any security and enforcement provisions will actually be enforced?

Amnesty will make America more vulnerable to attacks by terrorists since illegal immigration will increase, deportation will be even more difficult, and hiding in ethnic enclaves will be even easier. America will also be more vulnerable to gangs and assorted criminals who are terrorizing poor and minority communities.

This bill is a betrayal of America. It would be a disaster for America's economy, security, unity, culture, budget, and more.

It's no exaggeration to say that passage of the Bush-Kennedy amnesty would mark the end of America as we know and love it. Not immediately, but inevitably. All patriotic American must oppose this bill.

Friday, May 18, 2007

I just spoke with a friend who knows the people who work in the Michigan GOP office. He said the office “can’t handle the volume” and “don’t know what to do”. Saul Anuzis’s blackberry is flooded with messages, his voicemail is already full, and Ron Paul supporters are starting to find new phone numbers to reach him.

They are totally freaked out. He told me “they decided to stop answering the phones for the rest of the day because right when they hung up with one Ron Paul supporter the phone started to ring with the next. They couldn’t get any work done”. And “Saul has turned off his blackberry because he couldn’t handle the overload”.

He kept telling me how surprised they were at the amount of people calling and emailing. They didn’t know what was going on or who was behind it all. Total shock.

Let’s not let this one die. More phone calls and messages tomorrow. Keep the discussion going at the Facebook group.

OSHTEMO TOWNSHIP -- A Kalamazoo man was able to turn an attempted attack around because of his concealed weapons permit.

The Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Department says 32-year-old Brian Smith was approached by two men as he was entering his apartment on Mt. Royal Drive just before 2 a.m. Friday.

One of the suspects asked Smith for directions to Kalamazoo Valley Community College and then pulled out a revolver. Smith pulled out his revolver to defend himself and fired two shots, hitting the suspect in his left hand.

Both of the suspects fled the scene on foot. The wounded suspect was arrested a short time later while trying to get medical attention.

Once again, Planned Parenthood has been caught attempting to cover up rape. A student reporter working undercover has exposed their effort to lie about her age to so that she could have an abortion. This is a big benefit to rapists looking to cover up the evidence.

Michigan pro-life sidewalk counselor Anne Norton compiled significant evidence of at least ten unreported child rape victims, including girls as young as 11-years-old, treated or given an abortion by the Planned Parenthood of South Central Michigan in Kalamazoo. Despite overwhelming evidence, including sworn affidavits, witness statements, and family interviews, local law enforcement has failed to act against the clinic’s unlawful cover-up.

Where's the "take back the night" crowd on this?

On a side note, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg has advocated the elimination of single-sex prisons. Can anyone think of a problem with that?

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Hey all. I know you haven't heard from me in a long time, and you have been itching to read something new from me. Well, here I am, but only to copy another story and put it here. I promise to have original material soon. Until then...

FROM DRUDGE...

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit.

This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

Awesome... this is of course the same speaker who promised a spirit of bipartisanship when she was in charge. Note the unprecedented change in a rule that was last altered 185 years ago. The Republicans are kind of going about this the wrong way as well, but the Democratic leadership is famous for backing the GOP into tight corners... remember the Harry Reid closed door session stunt? When the GOP was in control, they didn't have to use procedural stunts for the most part, because they had enough votes for almost anything (which wasn't always a good thing). If nothing else, Pelosi's running of the lower house is laughable.

It's May in Washington; that means time for immigration "reform." Last May, the Senate passed a horrible comprehensive (a.k.a amnesty) bill, which would have legalized almost all the 12 million illegal aliens now in our country. It would have also set up a guest-worker program, importing up to 200,000 foreign workers every year. The majority of Senate Republicans opposed the Kennedy-McCain-Hagel-Martinez bill (S. 2611), but the Senate passed it by 62-36 (Roll Call 157). Thanks to sensible House members, the bill died.

Now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), is bringing up this dangerous bill (S. 1348) again, as a starting point for the Senate debate on immigration, which could begin tomorrow! Eagle Forum members nationwide have been instrumental in stopping the amnesty President Bush and party elites want to force on the American people. Your calls and local action are needed yet again!!

...

The Senate will start debate on immigration this week! Your calls are needed TODAY! Tell your Senators to OPPOSE any guest-worker/amnesty, or "comprehensive" immigration bills!

Be sure to keep checking your email, as Eagle Forum will be monitoring the debate and sending you updates daily so you can make your voice heard!

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Are conservatives terrorists? The state of Alabama seems to think so. Their department of Homeland Security listed the following groups as potential terrorists on their website.

gun rights groupstax protestorsEnvironmentalistsAnti-genetic Activists (opposed to genetically altered crops)Animal RightsPro-lifeAnti-NuclearAnti-WarAnd Gay Rights ActivistsPeople who believe:Gun Control = EnslavementConstitution has been subvertedThe U.S. has lost its sovereignty

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Ward Connerly, founder and chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), has been riding the wave of his successful 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which banned racial preferences in public universities and government hiring and contracting in that state. He will be looking to give voters in five more states the opportunity on Election Day 2008 to ban racial preferences. After the decisive 58-42% win in Michigan, Connerly and his supporters have every reason to believe that public opinion is strongly on their side.

Arizona (along with Missouri, Oklahoma, Colorado, and South Dakota) will be a battleground state where voters may have the chance to ban racial preferences in public education, contracting and employment. Jennifer Gratz, the named plaintiff in Gratz v. Bollinger (in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down use of race in admissions by the University of Michigan) and now Director of State and Local Initiatives for ACRI, says that Arizona was chosen as one of the five states in part because of strong local support and concern over use of race in a variety of setting including the Tucson magnet school program, law school admissions and even court sponsored programs.

Let's hope Republicans in these states learn from what happened in Michigan.

The legislation builds on measures passed by other states but focuses on deterring unauthorized employment. Among other things, it contains employment, labor law and civil rights provisions to protect citizens and legal immigrants who lose their jobs at companies that employ illegal immigrants to perform the same or similar work.

The measure targets employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens in order to gain a competitive advantage. Key elements of the bill focus on determining worker eligibility, including technology called the Basic Pilot program, which screens Social Security numbers to make sure they are real and that they match up with the job applicant's name.

Created by the federal government to verify the eligibility of government employees, use of the program is mandated in Georgia, authorities said. It is free to employers who voluntarily sign up.

Public agencies will be required to use the program beginning Nov. 1 and private companies by July 1, 2008.

The measure would also limit state driver's licenses and identity cards to citizens and legal immigrants and would require state and local agencies to verify the citizenship and immigration status of applicants for state or local benefits.

This update focuses on news from abroad. Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, and held some British soldiers hostage for two weeks. Some disturbing elements in Islam are not widely reported. Russia continues in descent into tyranny. France recently elected a pro-America president, Nicholas Sarkozy.

He changed his position and in 2007 says that he is pro-life. He says that he opposes Roe v Wade. He vetoed government funding for the destruction of human embryos. He vetoed a bill mandating emergency contraception.

Foreign PolicyRomney takes a hawkish stand on foreign policy. He supports the war in Iraq.

On foreign policy, Romney said he's "not a member of any school" - neo-conservative or realist - but he believes that combating Islamic jihadists will be the top priority for the next president and will require "a major, long-term effort to support the institutions of modernity in the world of Islam."

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts... These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

In 2002, he attacked a bill passed by the legislature as too pro-gun. In 2003, he quadrupled the fee for a firearm identification card, which is required to own a gun or ammunition, from $25 to $100. In 1994, he criticized the National Rifle Association; in 2006 he joined the NRA and praised it.

ImmigrationHe opposed giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. He opposed giving drivers licences to illegals. In 2006, at the end of his term as Governor, he authorized state police to enforce immigration laws.

In 2006, Romney endorsed the federal marriage amendment. In 2006, He endorsed a proposed state marriage amendment. In 2004, he opposed a different version of the amendment that would have prevented civil unions. In 2003, he advocated creating "civil unions", which are equivalent to "gay marriage" in all but name.

In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a decision that the Massachusetts Constitution mandated "gay marriage". Romney chose to order County Clerks and Justices of the Peace to implement "gay marriage". According to some conservatives, he could have refused to implement the ruling. He defended a state law denying marriage licences to couples from other states.

As Governor, Romney generally supported "gay rights". In 1994, he opposed the Boy Scouts' position on homosexuality. One fourth of the judges he appointed as Governor were Republicans.

RegulationIn 2006, Romney advocated and signed a health care plan that imposes significant costs on business. In 2007, it became known that the plan would impose significant costs on hospitals, taxpayers, and insurance buyers. The plan was endorsed by Ted Kennedy.

In 2007, Romney called for the repeal of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. In 1994, he advocated somewhat similar regulations of campaign finance.

In 2006, Romney supported drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). As Governor, he supported environmental regulations.

SpendingThe Cato Institute gave Romney a C on their Fiscal Policy Report Card for Governors. Cato writes that "he proposed modest increases to the budget and line-item vetoed millions of dollars each year only to have most of those vetoes overridden". (See page 26) His health care plan will cause "massive costs to taxpayers". The Club for Growth provided a somewhat favorable evaluation of Romney's record on spending.

In 2006, Romney criticized the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which has a present value cost of 22 trillion dollars, but did not outright oppose it. In 2006, he supported the No Child Left Behind act, which included a large increase in government education spending.

TaxesIn 1996, Romney attacked the Flat Tax proposed by Steve Forbes. As Governor, he increased fees by more than $200 million after facing a deficit. In 2003, he declined to endorse President Bush's tax cut proposal. Romney has pledged not to raise taxes as President. The Club for Growth describes his record on taxes as "mixed".

Thursday, May 10, 2007

In one of his final acts as interim president of Western Michigan University, Diether Haenicke is sponsoring a cleanup of WMU's East Campus on Saturday from 2 to 4 p.m.

Participants will gather in front of East Hall, spend an hour and a half on the cleanup, then have pizza. Brandon Moore, who was a senior this year, is helping to organize the event.

The university's Landscape Services division will supply gloves and plastic bags for trash and debris collected during the event. The cleanup will cover an area bordered by Oakland Drive, Bellevue, Austin and Davis Streets. Volunteers should check in near the East Hall main entrance overlooking downtown Kalamazoo.

Haenicke first raised the topic to students who are part of his Facebook community and decided to extend the invitation to all students and the broader campus community. For more information contact Jon Andrews in the Office of the President at 387-2351.

As of Wednesday night, there were 98 confirmed guests on the Facebook Web site.

Students at Western Michigan University (WMU) are freer today thanks to a concerned alumnus who wrote to an open-minded university president about an unlawful policy in place at the school. After FIRE named WMU’s sexism policy its March 2007 Speech Code of the Month, WMU alumnus Brian Akers wrote to WMU President Diether Haenicke to express his concern over the policy. Akers’ compelling and articulate letter is worth reprinting here in its entirety. Akers wrote:

Dear Dr. Haenicke:

Please accept this note of interested concern from a WMU alumnus (B.A. 1979; M.A. 1981), regarding the WMU Sexual Harassment Policy, especially its prohibition on “sexism,” which is cited on the website of FIRE (www.thefire.org). My voice joins those respectfully raised in objection to such a policy.

I am sure you are aware of the curtailment of free speech, thought, and expression such a policy must inevitably portend. No doubt others have articulated this problem better than I can. There are many things clearly wrong with any such attempt to police personal viewpoint, from many perspectives—it is something right out of some Orwellian novel of a nightmare dystopian future world masquerading as an exercise in benevolence. Conscientious objections to “sexism” are one thing. But a policy that invites accusations and official investigations pertaining to it is something else entirely, and—in my humble opinion—should have no place whatsoever on any campus, especially that of a public university in the United States. I doubt there is, or can be, any valid instrument for detecting whether someone, or something they have said, is “sexist” in any reasonably objective sense. It is purely a matter of opinion, and thus belongs squarely within the realm of fair and open debate. Placing it anywhere else only invites abuse of power by those who wield it, against less powerful parties selected for bullying. I strongly doubt the architects of this policy have ever experienced the kind of ideological harassment a policy against “sexism” seems to endorse.

I got to know WMU and many of its offices well during my time there as a student, and I have always been proud of my history with the institution. One reflection of this is the following quote, which appears in a book I had published last year by University Press of America: “…assistance with translation was provided in 1982 by anonymous staff at the Language Center at Western Michigan University. I would add that although the Center’s service fee was my own expense, the University provided me with stipends in the form of a Graduate Fellowship and Assistantships, through the Anthropology Department” (p. xiii, The Sacred Mushrooms of Mexico: Assorted Texts). I can also speak for FIRE, an organization which has addressed many problematic policies such as this one, and always from a non-political, constitutional basis. The proliferation of such policies on campus has been an alarming and disturbing trend in recent decades. I hope you will see fit to consider redressing the Sexual Harassment policy at WMU so it will no longer be at odds with our fundamental rights, not only as academics, but as citizens of a free country.

Thank you for your kind consideration,

Brian P. Akers, Ph.D

Within a week, WMU President Diether Haenicke wrote a prompt, honest, and thoughtful response to Akers’ letter. Haenicke wrote:

Brian:

I share your concern. I was not aware of the policy and have given instruction to our VP for Legal Affairs and our VP for Student Affairs to re-work the text.

A revised version will be brought to our Board soon. I am particularly unhappy that we want to “punish” the “perception” of any offensive speech.

It will be changed.

Diether

Kudos to President Haenicke for recognizing the issues at stake here and for taking quick action to remedy this policy. If more administrators shared his understanding of free speech, FIRE would have a whole lot less work to do. Our collective hat goes off to him. And our deepest thanks also to Brian Akers, without whose excellent letter this policy change might not have happened.

Saturday, May 05, 2007

This update focuses on the North American Union (NAU). Opposition to the NAU continues to grow. The Idaho and Montana legislatures have passed resolutions against the NAU. The Texas legislature has passed bill delaying the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC). The Department of Transportation has approved a plan to allow Mexican trucks on American highways. The European Union and United Nations also threaten sovereignty.

Friday, May 04, 2007

Today, Detroit City Council members will consider a proposal to make the Motor City a “sanctuary city” with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” mandate to prohibit police officers from asking about immigration status without criminal cause.

If Detroit acts on this proposal, it will join more than 30 other major cities that already have similar mandates.

Meanwhile, Congress has yet to re-open debate on immigration reform after abandoning proposals last year after an agreement could not be reached to secure the border without creating a path to citizenship that would have given amnesty to illegal aliens.

Sanctuary city policies defy guidelines from the 9/11 Commission Report, which called on state and local authorities to help federal agencies crack down on illegal immigration. On page 390 it said that, “There is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies [for the enforcement of immigration law]. They need more training and work with federal agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects.”

Detroit City Council President Kenneth Cockrel, Jr. doesn’t think his city’s police officers have any obligation to uphold federal immigration law. He told the Detroit Free Press, “If you’re a police officer and pulling someone over for a traffic stop, why do you need to see their immigration papers? That’s not the responsibility of the police force, that’s the responsibility of federal law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.”

Cockrel also said that he expects the sanctuary city proposal to pass.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Isolationist Ignorance in ActionWatch Lou Dobbs ascend to the pinnacle of protectionist prevarication.

By Donald Luskin

The advocates of free trade have on their side over 200 years of settled science in economics, going all the way back to Adam Smith. The advocates of protectionism have Lou Dobbs.

With his nightly harangues on CNN and through his books, Lou Dobbs has become the public face of today’s dangerous movement toward economic isolationism. That movement has become all the more dangerous since the Democratic party took control of Congress. Beholden to Big Labor, the Democrats have no choice but to cater to that powerful lobby’s fears of a dynamic globalized American economy.

Last month, when Dobbs testified before Congress, it was not just a case of preaching to the choir, or even the blind leading the stupid. It was vivid proof of Goethe’s famous dictum, “Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action.”

Let’s take a look close look at Dobbs’s testimony. It was long on impressive-sounding claims based on apparently authoritative statistics. But virtually every seeming fact that Dobbs cited is flat wrong.

Dobbs said that free trade is costing America jobs. With the unemployment rate now at only 4.4 percent, it’s hard to see what he is complaining about. Nevertheless he stated that

Since the beginning of this new century, the United States has lost more than three million manufacturing jobs. Three million more jobs have been lost to cheap overseas labor markets …

That’s a total of six million jobs. According to the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, there today are only 6.7 million unemployed people in the U.S. to begin with. So just what is Dobbs promising? That if we had pursued protectionist trade policies, we’d have six million more jobs — leaving only 700 thousand people unemployed? That would put the unemployment rate at less than one half of one percent — a tiny fraction of the lowest unemployment rate ever achieved in history.

Surely this sets a new high water mark for sheer absurdity in the long history of political promises to provide more jobs.

In his testimony, Dobbs also claimed that

The trade deficit has more than doubled since President George W. Bush took office. The U.S. trade deficit has been a drag on our economic growth in 18 of the 24 quarters of George W. Bush’s presidency.

Let’s first deal with the pandering and Bush-bashing inside what was supposed to be testimony about free trade. Everything Dobbs said applies to the Clinton years, only more so. The trade deficit grew more than seven-fold during Clinton’s presidency. And it was a so-called “drag on growth” in 25 out of 32 quarters, a ratio that’s worse than Bush’s.

Second, and more important, the argument that the trade deficit is a “drag on growth” at all makes no concrete economic sense. Yes, if we imagine that every penny spent on imports were instead spent on similar goods made in the U.S., then our gross domestic product would be higher, by definition. But what if there were a law saying U.S. consumers could no longer buy, for instance, German beer? Does that mean U.S. consumers would actually switch to American beer? The answer is not clear. And even if they did, given that today some consumers must prefer German beer to American beer when there is choice, it’s not evident that our growth would be any higher, as Dobbs predicted.

Dobbs also declared that

Salaries and wages now represent the lowest share of our national income than any time since 1929. Corporate profits have the largest share of our national income than at any time since 1950.

The claim about salaries and wages is so deceptive as to very nearly be a lie. Dobbs ignored the fact that for many of the years following 1929, companies paid only salaries and wages, and no fringe benefits such as pensions or health care. In the modern economy, fringe benefits are a significant portion of total compensation. Today, the income share of total worker compensation — wages and salaries plus benefits — is higher than in any year prior to 1967, and lands in about the middle of the narrow range in which it has since fluctuated.

Meanwhile, the claim about corporate profits is flat-out wrong. Corporate profits’ share of national income has been higher than it is today in 17 of the years since 1950.

Dobbs also argued that The cumulative effect of more than three decades of trade deficits and mounting external debt has produced our first investment income deficit on record. This is the first time that Americans have earned less on investments abroad than foreigners earned on their investments in the United States since 1946, when the Commerce Department began keeping records.

Dobbs never said why this is bad, or why a difference between nations in investment flows should be referred to as a “deficit.” Is there any particular reason why it is virtuous for us to earn more from investing in foreign nations than the entire rest of the world earns by investing in us? Rather than being the result of trade policy, this could happen simply because investments in America perform better than investments elsewhere. And wouldn’t that be a good thing?

Be that as it may, Dobbs’s claim is statistically untrue. According to the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2006 the U.S. earned $57 billion more from investing abroad than all other nations earned by investing here.

A cavalcade of error and statistical misrepresentation was the best the superstar of the protectionist movement could do. When it comes to the facts, Dobbs ought to consider a more liberal personal trade policy. If he wants the truth, he’ll have to import it from someplace else. He’s fresh out.